United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HARRIS TOLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this
case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for
case management, including the issuance of findings and a
recommended disposition. The Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Upon review of the relevant
pleadings and applicable law, this case should be summarily
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as
October 1, 2019, Mitchell filed a rambling, 36-page, amended
complaint that is clearly irrational. In it, he never states
a cause of action or alleges any coherent facts from which
the Court can discern a cognizable cause of action.
See Doc. 7, passim. Mitchell subsequently
filed two other unintelligible pleadings in this case.
See Doc. 8; Doc. 9.
Mitchell is seeking to proceed in forma pauperis,
his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). That statute provides for the sua
sponte dismissal of a complaint if the Court finds that
it (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A
complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A court may dismiss
a complaint as frivolous when it is based on an indisputable
meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are
“clearly ‘baseless.'” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). The latter category
encompasses allegations that describe “fanciful,
fantastic, and delusional” scenarios, or that
“rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible.” Id. at 33.
Court must always liberally construe pleadings filed by
pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (noting pro se pleadings
“must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers”); Cf. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do
justice.”). Even under this most liberal construction,
however, Mitchell's has failed to state a cognizable
claim or anything that can be construed as such. Moreover,
his factual contentions are woefully inadequate to support
any legal claim, see Denton, 504 U.S. at 33, and his
allegations appear irrational and incredible Accordingly,
Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice
LEAVE TO AMEND
a pro se plaintiff should be granted leave to amend
his complaint prior to dismissal. However, leave to amend is
not required when plaintiff “has already pleaded his
‘best case.'” Brewster v. Dretke,
587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). As discussed herein,
Mitchell has already filed an amended complaint; still, his
apparent claims are fatally infirm. Based on the most
deferential review of his pleadings, it is unlikely that,
even if given the opportunity, he could allege cogent and
viable legal claims. Thus, the Court concludes that granting
leave to amend under these circumstances would be futile and
cause needless delay.
foregoing reasons, this action should be summarily
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous.
See28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
of this report and recommendation will be served on all
parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects
to any part of this report and recommendation must file
specific written objections within 14 days after being served
with a copy. See28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, the basis for the
objection, and the place in the magistrate judge's report
and recommendation the disputed determination is found. An
objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to
the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific.
Failure to file specific written objections will bar the
aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or
adopted by the district court, except upon grounds ...